OUR OPINION: Judges, juries should be able to exercise compassion without forfeiting justice

The Patriot Ledger, Quincy, MA

Writer

Posted Jun. 26, 2010 at 12:01 AM
Updated Jun 26, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Posted Jun. 26, 2010 at 12:01 AM
Updated Jun 26, 2010 at 10:08 PM

EDITORIAL

» Social News

The specter of insanity defenses in three pending cases of local interest should prompt the Legislature to revisit a state law that unnecessarily forces us to choose between mercy and justice.

Massachusetts law currently requires judges and juries to find a defendant not guilty in cases where he or she is deemed to have been insane at the time of the crime.

The provision rightfully recognizes mental illness as a mitigating factor in such cases but denies victims and their families any sense of justice.

That trade-off is not an issue in states that provide the option of guilty by reason of insanity, a finding that also sends the guilty party to a hospital rather than prison.

But the biggest problem with Massachusetts law is that while other states give their courts and the criminal justice system ultimate authority in determining whether someone can be released after treatment if they are deemed cured, Massachusetts gives that authority to state hospital doctors. District attorneys are notified and can file a petition for civil commitment but it is an uphill battle under the law.

The system also creates a situation in which lawyers can request that release hearings – on the basis of medical privacy – be held behind closed doors rather than publicly.

Lawyers for Helen Kirk of Carver – who strangled her 3-year-old son in 2005 but was found not guilty by reason of insanity – are asking the state’s highest court to rule that a hearing to release her from a mental hospital be closed.

Parties in the case have until July 15 to file arguments on why the public should or should not have access to the proceedings. The Patriot Ledger has asked the Supreme Judicial Court for permission to fill a brief in support of opening of the courtroom to the public.

This process could be played out again in the case of Thomas Mortimer IV of Winchester, accused of slaying his two young children, his wife and her mother on June 15.

His lawyer has said mental health will be a “live issue” in the case.

Meanwhile, a lawyer for Amy Bishop – accused in February of slaying three fellow professors at the University of Alabama – says her recent indictment in the 1986 Braintree death of her brother may benefit her insanity defense in Alabama.

But at least in Alabama, unlike Massachusetts, a finding of insanity would not remove Bishop from judicial oversight.

The law has for centuries tried to find the balance between justice for criminal acts and compassion for the mentally ill.

Four states – Kansas, Montana, Idaho, Utah – have gone to one extreme and do not allow the insanity defense.

That’s unfair to those who are mentally incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

Page 2 of 2 - Massachusetts’ law is unfair, for different reasons.

It denies victims’ families a sense of justice, removes our judicial system from the adjudication process and potentially blocks public access to confinement decisions about people who have been proven capable of heinous deeds.

The law needs to change so that we can exercise compassion without forfeiting justice.